| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T119897.20010305 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 05 March 2001 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1198/97 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 90203444.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B01D 1/16 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Computer-controlled spray-drying process | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | UNILEVER N.V., et al | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | HENKEL KGaA PROCTER & GAMBLE E.T.C. |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.05 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Novelty - yes, no implicit disclosure Procedural violation - yes, introduction of evidence by opposition division in oral proceedings without indicating relevant facts thereof Competence for requests concerning the minutes of first instance oral proceedings |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
When a document published several years after the priority date of the patent-in-suit is introduced by the Opposition Division of its own motion as evidence for the common general knowledge at the priority date of the patent-in-suit, in order to safeguard the parties'right to be heard under Article 113(1) EPC, the parties have to be made aware of the publication date of the document, if this date cannot be ascertained from the document itself (6. of the Reasons). 2. Even when an appeal has been filed against a decision of a first instance department, only the department of first instance before which the oral proceedings took place is competent and at the same time also obliged to decide in first instance on a request concerning the contents of the minutes of oral proceedings held before it (7. of the Reasons). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t971198eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021